[generalizations]

> sued into the ground

The consequences should be severe, but should not prevent the company from finding ways to learn from their mistakes. There's a middle ground here: if there's no consequences, then we get careless implementations without improvement. If the consequence is bankruptcy, then there's no version of the tech that would ever be released by a respectable company. So we need something in the middle, where the consequences are severe enough to motivate good tech, but not severe enough to block the tech altogether.

[candiddevmike]

The tech is inevitable IMO, so I disagree that bankruptcy shouldn't be on the table given the potential for harm (an errant update could result in nationwide or worldwide catastrophies). You want to be the first to deliver self driving? Better make sure it works.

[generalizations]

> The tech is inevitable IMO

That's where we disagree. I think it would be entirely possible to prevent development permanently (or almost...50-100 years or more) if the regulations are too harsh.

Even with some fatalities, I think self driving could reduce total deaths. Perfect is the enemy of the good.